Translating the Subtle Powers of English: A Study of Ideological Triggers in English Syntactic Structures and Their Translations to Dutch

(1)

Translating the Subtle Powers of English

A Study of Ideological Triggers in English Syntactic Structures

and Their Translations to Dutch

MA Thesis Linguistics – Translation in Theory and Practice

W.I.Heezen

Supervisor:

P.H. Dol

Second reader:

K.L. Zeven

(2)

(3)

Abstract

This thesis aims to compile a collection of descriptive guidelines for the translation of ideological syntactic structures in texts from English to Dutch. The notion that there "is not (...) any possibility that any discourse is free of ideas, and thus of ideology" (Jeffries 8) has prompted the ambition to choose texts that demonstrate the subtle powers of English and Dutch. These hidden forces are manifested in conscious or unconscious linguistic choices which lead to implicit ideological conveyance. There are numerous studies on ideology in texts, and many cultural or socio-political linguistic, or purely linguistic models of analysis have been developed over the past decades. However, little research has been done on the actual translation of implicit ideology in texts and its potential, yet concealed, manipulation of the reader. On the basis of Jeffries’ Critical Stylistics model a set of linguistic tools will be applied on a corpus of English op-ed articles and analysed to identify their ideological influence on the text, only including socio-political or contextual analysis to a small extent. This largely linguistic approach enables subsequent analysis of the techniques that have been used to translate the ideological structures in these articles. By means of Vinay and

Darbelnet's model of direct and oblique translation (Munday 86), and the translation

procedures they comprise, this thesis ultimately intends to serve as a stimulus to set guidelines for the translation of ideological syntactic structures from English to Dutch.

(4)

Thank you,

Christien de Leeuw, mama For being the example in my life: Never ever give up. Marten Heezen, papa † You were given brains, use them.

Jacques and Ineke Noordhuizen For your continuous practical support, and faith in me. Rick Noordhuizen For your implicit faith and heartening matter-of-course

intention to read this work.

Philomeen Dol For your encouraging support and useful feedback. Katinka Zeven For academic teaching and second reading.

Dittie Bakker For continuously expressing absolute belief in my capacity to complete this.

Juliette van de Quast-Groen For being my ideological sparring partner at all times. Jan Kalter For being there in the background, also for my mother. Cies Pierot Just what I needed for the final sprint.

Hans Steketee For help in my search for suitable articles and their translations.

(8)

95 CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CE Common Era

SL Source language (English)

ST Source Text (English)

OV Object Verb

VO Verb Object

TL Target Language (Dutch)

TT Target Text (Dutch)

Italicised in this work (except for titles) are:  Jeffries linguistic practices

 Translation strategies  Translation procedures

 Names of sources other than those quoted or rephrased.  Names of theoretical Frameworks

Capitalised (the first letter) in this work are:

(9)

3

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 Ideology and Language 1.2 Ideology and Translation

1.3 The Aim and Structure of this Work 1.4 Methodology and Corpus

1.1 Ideology and Language

Before expanding on ideological triggers in syntactic structures it may be good to attempt a definition of ideology. Introducing ideology in a universal sense, however, is a challenge to which I have not been able to rise. In my search for reference works on ideology, with which I hoped to create a concise and general description on the concept, I was led to the farthest corners of politics, social sciences, philosophy, linguistics, and other scientific and

unscientific studies. And though this experience in itself may typify the ambiguous definition of ideology, I confined myself to the field of linguistics for reasons that may be apparent. For the practical purpose of this thesis it should suffice to assume that, in general, ideology is a set of political, cultural, and social values and beliefs (Carter, Nash 21). If we take this theory to the familiar surroundings of language we can also assume that language can carry ideology (Jeffries 5). In fact, we may even assume that language always carries ideology. This idea is confirmed largely in linguistic literature. Boogaarts asserts that language is never neutral (18) while Blommaerts argues that our language performance is always rooted in social and cultural assumptions about what we do and try to achieve with it (42). He illustrates this by refuting the claim that language use in science is naturally objective. He states that even scientific language use is based on definitions and conventions that are socially and culturally entrenched, and that continuously shift according to the character of an era (43). Lakoff and Johnson have devoted a chapter to what they call “the myths” of objectivism and, hence, subjectivism:

(10)

4 If we assume that language use is always a reflection of subjective perspectives, then we may equally consider all texts to reflect “the writer’s attitudes, beliefs and viewpoints or more generally, the values and taken-for-granted assumptions of a social group or culture” (Puurtinen 53). This implies that a writer has a most powerful tool at hand in conveying ideology, all the more since the communication with his readership is one-way. He can lead the ignorant reader in any ideological direction . The awareness of the power of language has existed since Aristotle, or maybe even longer, and much has been published on its analysis from all possible angles in the linguistic field. Recently, there has been an increasing trend in the publication of language books for less linguistically versed readers (e.g. Boogaart, Leith, Pinker, Blommaert, Steenmeijer). Their aim includes the rise of awareness of the reversed influence of ideology in language, in other words, how language is able to not just express but also subtly manipulate our values and beliefs. That tendency has inspired me to initiate my own scrutiny of the subtle powers of language, which has eventually led to this thesis. Of particular interest to me then is the relationship between ideology and translation. The next section (1.2) is concerned with how these two relate.

1.2 Ideology and Translation

If we assume that a writer has powerful tools at hand in the conveyance of ideology we may assume that a translator’s instruments are just as powerful. Puurtinen affirms that both writer and translator have the possibility to create certain perspectives by making certain linguistic choices. These choices reflect or even reinforce the writer’s opinions and attitude, and may be used to influence those of the reader (2). She distinguishes between explicit (I think X must do Y) and implicit ideology which is subconscious and generally accepted. The latter category is more difficult to unveil, and hence for the reader more difficult to become aware of. In translation, the ideologically motivated linguistic choices may be manipulated unintentionally

In Western culture as a whole, objectivism is by far the greater potentate, claiming to rule, at least nominally, the realms of science, law, government, journalism, morality, business, economics, and scholarship. But, as we have argued, objectivism is a myth (189).

(11)

5 or intentionally as well. Unintentional manipulation may be caused “by inadequate language and/or translation skills or insufficient knowledge of the relationship between the language and ideology” while intentional manipulation may be swayed by various impulses such as “translation norms, requirements of the translation commission or the translator’s own

attitudes towards the source text subject” (Puurtinen 55). To avoid unintentional discrepancies between ideological encoding in the ST and TT, the translator may wish to use a model of analysis to decode it. Linguistic models that have gradually made their way into text analysis as well as into translation in the last few decades include those of Critical Discourse Analysis (Munday Chapter 8.5). Chapter 2 of this work briefly discusses this discipline as it is the breeding ground for the Critical Stylistics model that is the starting point for my thesis and that serves as a framework in which my ST and TT analysis is conducted.

1.3 The Aim and Structure of this Work

The aim of this work is to uncover ideological triggers in syntactic structures in English texts, to compare their effects to those in the Dutch translations, and to describe the translation procedures that have been or may be applied. The basic principle is that the textual triggers in the ST should be of syntactic and ‘covert’ nature, and be challenging from a translator’s point of view. In order to draw conclusions my analysis is conducted on a corpus of five English op-ed articles. The corpus and the methodological procedure I followed are elucidated in the next section 1.4. The theoretical framework for text analysis on syntactic structures and their ideological character is based on Lesley Jeffries’ model of Critical Stylistics. The framework used for translation analysis is based on Vinay and Darbelnet’s taxonomy. The choice for these frameworks is upheld in chapter 2 while a description of both is given in chapters 3 and 4 respectively. The description of the theoretical reference used for TT analysis in Dutch is included in chapter 3, where Critical Stylistics as a theoretical framework is discussed, as it is merely used as an inventory of acknowledged syntactic structures in Dutch and as such not a framework for analysis. For the purpose of a clear outline of this work I will give a foretaste here of Jeffries’ Critical Stylistics model:

To uncover ideological structures in texts, Jeffries provides a set of ten linguistic fields whose names suggest possible answers to the question of what a text is ‘doing’ (Jeffries 15). I have selected four of Jeffries’ linguistic fields that are relevant within the scope of this work:

(12)

6  Naming and Describing

 Equating and Contrasting  Prioritizing

 Negating

Chapter 3.2 elaborates on why these four seem most relevant. Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8 cover the detailed analysis of each of these linguistic practices linked to syntactic structures and

translation procedures, while chapter 9 very briefly describes each of Jeffries’ remaining linguistic fields that have not been used in this work but may nonetheless be interesting for future studies. Chapter 10 takes up the conclusion drawn in reference to the theory and the analyses.

In view of the preliminary explanation, this work will be structured as follows:

Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Justification

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework for Text Analysis and Dutch Checklist Chapter 4 Theoretical Framework for Translation Analysis

Chapter 5 Naming and Describing Chapter 6 Equating and Contrasting Chapter 7 Prioritizing

Chapter 8 Negating

Chapter 9 Jeffries’ other Linguistic Practices Chapter 10 Conclusion

The subsequent section (1.4) explains in more detail how the corpus and the frameworks have been used for analysis in this work, and how the analysis is structured in the chapters.

(13)

7

1.4 Methodology and Corpus

Methodology

To analyse texts and their linguistic practices Jeffries model of Critical Stylistics distinguishes ten different fields of textual behaviour, which are outlined in chapter 3 and expounded on further in chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. In order to be able to decode these linguistic practices Jeffries relates several syntactic tools for linguistic analysis to these fields. In chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8, I start with an overview of the function, form and effect of the respective syntactic tools linked to each of the four selected linguistic fields from Jeffries’ model (see chapter 1.3). Each tool is illustrated by examples from the corpus. I then consider the use of the structure as an ideological device in Dutch, compare the English examples to their translations in Dutch, and identify possible deviations between ST and TT that may lead to a different effect in the conveyance of ideology. If it comes to that, I may also provide a reverse

translation or an alternative translation to illustrate different impact. Lastly I comment on the translation procedure that has been used, to define whether it was obligatory or optional, and to consider its general usability for the translation of the respective syntactic structure. The analysis should reveal the employability of the selected practices and their corresponding syntactic triggers for text analysis on ideology in both ST and TT and may consequently lead to conclusions about the translator’s influence in the transference of ideology in the TT by using certain translation procedures.

Corpus

To build a corpus for my research I initially wanted to collect English news articles that had been translated to Dutch. The idea was that these would be useful to scrutinize on hidden ideology. However, during my search for left-wing or right-wing newspaper articles I learned that hardly any newspaper articles are literally translated before being published. Newspapers normally republish news from the Associated Press in their own words and for their own target readers. As the aim of this thesis is to look at ideology in source texts and their pure translations, the use of news articles was therefore no longer an option. Instead, my corpus is a collection of op-ed articles initially published on the website Project Syndicate, with one exception of text 4 (Je suis Charlie? It’s a bit late) which was published on the website of the particular article’s author. All articles were translated for the Dutch left-wing newspaper De Volkskrant by four different translators. On the next page I have listed in order of appearance

(14)

8 the titles of the original article, their writers, the Dutch title, the translator’s name (if known) and the date of publication.

1. After Paris Richard Haass 16 Nov. 2015

Na Parijs Melle Trap 16 Nov. 2015

2. Executing Foreign Policy Richard Haass 29 Dec. 2015 Niet akkoorden zelf, maar uitvoering is cruciaal Menno Grootveld 5 Jan. 2016

3. Life after Schengen Bill Emmott 1 Oct. 2015

Het leven na Schengen wordt grenzeloos beter Unknown 8 Oct. 2015 4. Je suis Charlie? It’s a bit late Kenan Malik 8 Jan. 2015 Met zelfcensuur help je minderheden juist niet Leo Reijnen 10 Jan. 2015

5. David Cameron’s Europe Carl Bildt 9May 2015

Camerons zege kan EU nieuwe impuls geven. Menno Grootveld 12 May 2015

All writers are native users of English with the exception of Carl Bildt whose mother tongue is Swedish. The translators are all native users of Dutch. The translator whose name is not known prefers to have his translations published anonymously.

The original text by Kenan Malik (text 4) does not entirely equate with the translation that was published in the Volkskrant. I contacted the translator, Leo Reijnen, who said that it was exactly this article that he had been sent to translate, and that modifications are always on account of the writer. He referred me to the editor of the particular section , Kustaw Bessems, who explained that in that very hectic week, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the writer Kenan Malik was asked by several media to submit an op-ed article. He did so, but under great time pressure. He may afterwards have altered and added text to the initial version before he eventually published it on his own blog. This explains the differences between the ST and TT. The original version that was sent to the Volkskrant could unfortunately not be retrieved. For completeness and accuracy I have listed the differences on the next page:

(15)

9 List of the differences in ST 4 and TT 4

Sentences 15 – 28 ST are not in the TT (italicised in the ST) Sentences 29 – 36 ST are 60 – 71 TT

Sentences 37 – 44 ST are 97 – 107 TT Sentences 45 – 54 ST are 73 – 85 TT Sentences 55 – 62 ST are 107 – 116 TT

Sentences 22 – 60 TT are not in the ST (italicised in TT) Sentences 87 – 97 TT are not in the ST (italicised in TT)

(16)

10

Chapter 2 Justification

2.1 Critical Stylistics

2.2 Vinay and Darbelnet’s taxonomy

2.1 Critical Stylistics

To conduct my ST analysis I have used part of Lesley Jeffries’ model of Critical Stylistics. In this chapter I will explain why I have chosen for this model, how it is related to, and, at the same time, a clear step away from CDA. This chapter is also concerned with the explanation of the framework’s name Critical Stylistics.

Over the past few decades theories of text analysis and translation have developed from a linguistic to a more functional approach. This change was related to the growth of discourse analysis in applied linguistics (Munday). Linguistic models that have been employed in translation since then include those from critical discourse analysis. Fairclough (26) distinguishes three stages of CDA:

 Description is the stage which is concerned with formal properties of the text.  Interpretation is concerned with the relationship between text and interaction.

 Explanation is concerned with the relationship between interaction and social context.

According to Jeffries it is the stage of ‘explanation’ that has been the predominant area of interest in CDA literature so far, while he is more interested in a combination of the first two stages, connecting textual properties to interaction. He does, however, deny that his model is a return to “an outdated view on how meanings arise from texts” (8) and hastens to mention that he does, in fact, agree with Fairclough who states that “while it is true that the forms and content of texts do bear the imprint of (...) ideological processes and structures, it is not possible to ‘read off ’ ideologies from texts” (qt in Jeffries 8). Jeffries’ model of Critical Stylistics, however, is based on the assumption that it is “ possible to separate out some of the ideologies that a text constructs (or reinforces) and the assimilation of those ideologies (or their rebuttal) by readers” (Jeffries 8). With this the first part of the name for his model

(17)

11 Critical Stylistics seems justified as the word Critical represents the ideological focus. The second component Stylistics is claimed appropriate because it indicates that his model is of a more linguistic nature while CDA has seen a shift away from textual analysis. The term Stylistics should cover the focal point on the choices of a text producer (Jeffries 2).

My discovery of Jeffries’ book was a moment of sheer happiness. At the time I was walking around in circles trying to find a model of analysis that would fit my stylistic and ‘text analytic’ preference, yet respecting the ‘ideological beyond’. The multidisciplinary nature of CDA does not allow for analysis on micro-level and does not provide a framework of

univocal syntactic triggers. The syntactic framework that Jeffries’ model displays, on the other hand, seems a solid foundation for text analysis on concealed ideological ideas in syntactic structures, as is illustrated in detail in the chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.

2.2 Vinay and Darbelnet’s Taxonomy

The model for translation analysis that Vinay and Darbelnet developed in the 1950s ties in with the syntactic approach of this work. Although it was based on comparative stylistics of French and English its “influence has been much wider” (Munday 86). Like Jeffries’ model it can serve as a technical framework for analysis. It is based on the assumption that “with a better understanding of the rules governing the transfer from one language to another, we would arrive at an ever-increasing number of unique solutions” (Vinay, Darbelnet 8). Based on the identification of actual techniques that a translator uses, they defined a set of linguistic procedures that are commonly used in translation. These procedures are all related to certain structural or semantic changes, forming a framework for linguistic analysis. An outline of the most common procedures is given in chapter 4. 3. My hypothesis is that each unique syntactic structure in the ST can be coupled with one or more particular translation procedures so as to create a similar structure in the TT. By observing these connections the translator may be more likely to recognise certain ideological triggers and by applying the most plausible procedure more likely to construct a syntactic structure with an equivalent ideological trigger in the TT. For the purpose of this work it seemed a very suitable model as it allows for micro-level analysis. It distinguishes between several syntactic and semantic procedures rather than adopting an overall translation approach and with that it meets the same stylistic and text analytic principles as Jeffries’ Critical Stylistics model (chapter 2.1) used in this work.

(18)

12

Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework for Text Analysis and Dutch Checklist

3.1 Critical Stylistics - Lesley Jeffries’ linguistic model 3.2 Critical Stylistics and the aim of this thesis.

3.3 Checklist Nederlandse stijlmiddelen

3.1 Critical Stylistics - Lesley Jeffries’ Linguistic Model

This chapter describes the general principles of Critical Stylistics (3.1) while the subsequent section (3.2) is concerned with how Critical Stylistics is related to the aim of this work.

As explained in chapter 1.3, Jeffries’ model to uncover ideological structures in texts is based on ten linguistic fields whose names suggest possible answers to the question of what a text is ‘doing’ (Jeffries 15). While in chapter 1.3 I only outlined the four relevant fields for this work, I have included the exhaustive list in this chapter. Jeffries suggests that the following

linguistic practices may be found texts:

1. Naming and Describing

2. Representing Actions/Events/States 3. Equating and Contrasting

4. Exemplifying and Enumerating 5. Prioritizing

6. Assuming and Implying 7. Negating

8. Hypothesizing

9. Presenting the Speech and Thoughts of other Participants 10. Representing Time, Space and Society

To this relatively “untechnical” labelling Jeffries links certain lexical or grammatical features. However, he asserts that with this rather conceptual approach readers get an immediate idea of the kind of information they contend with, and can relate technical aspects accordingly.

(19)

13 Besides that, he maintains that the lack of what he calls ‘form-function mapping’ (16) leaves room for any particular lexical or grammatical feature to fit in the category. He exemplifies by pointing out that modality in English for example is typically associated with modal verbs (may, might, should, etc), but that it may equally be achieved in other lexical ways (modal adjectives, modal main verbs), or even by certain intonation patterns, or body language for that matter. By categorising his tools according to text behaviour rather than to form and function he acknowledges that they differ in formal range, but nonetheless balance between formal and functional facets of language. He refers to Simpson to sustain his intention:

Like Simpson, then, I am concerned with stylistic choices, and the textual analysis which can illuminate the choices that a text producer has made whether consciously or not. This is not a recipe for understanding the full impact of a text on a reader, because the background and experience of the reader will inform that impact. However, it is worth repeating that texts do indeed have some ideological content which may influence the reader (or not) in a range of ways, and the tools in this book are provided to help the reader discover that ideological content. (Jeffries 16)

As we proceed our journey through the model, we will find that it offers us a set of “constraints and pressures on textual choices” (87) rather than separate categories according to which we can analyse an utterance independently.

3.2 Critical Stylistics and the Aim of this Thesis.

In chapter 1.3 I argued that not all of the linguistic practices and tools that Jeffries’ model offers are equally useful for the purpose of this thesis, to analyse features in texts that may or may not have an ideological effect. The eventual intention of this work is to collect a set of tools for the translation of linguistic structures that implicitly convey ideology, and prior analysis of the source text on ideological features specifically. Some of these features appear to be more common than others in the TL, and have close equivalents. In order to make this work feasible for both reader and writer I will confine my analysis of the ST to syntactic structures rather than semantic or pragmatic elements. Some of Jeffries’ linguistic practices

(20)

14 are therefore less relevant for my research as they overlap considerably with one of these or both disciplines. As stated in chapter 1.3 the basic principle for my research is that the textual triggers for ideology should be of syntactic and ‘covert’ nature, and challenging from a translator’s point of view. I have examined each tool with this principle in mind, and reflected on them accordingly in chapters 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 with the last chapter covering all linguistic practices that have not been used including a brief description and an explanation as to why they have not been included in this work.

3.3 Checklist Nederlandse Stijlmiddelen

As Dutch stylistic analysis has only recently begun to develop, models of Jeffries’ type do not yet exist in the TL. To compare the syntactic triggers to those in Dutch I used Verhagen’s Checklist Nederlandse Stijlmiddelen. He has based his list on Leech and Short’s checklist in their linguistic introduction to prose Style and Fiction (61). I only used this checklist to compare Jeffries’ linguistic tools to Dutch counterparts if relevant. Along with Verhagen’s checklist I have used Aarts and Wekker’s A contrastive grammar of English and Dutch and Renkema’s Schrijfwijzer as a reference for Dutch syntactic structures.

(21)

15

Chapter 4 Theoretical Framework for Translation Analysis

4.1 Literal versus Free translation 4.2 Vinay and Darbelet’s taxonomy

4.3 The translation procedures and the aim of this thesis 4.3.1 Direct Translation procedures

4.3.2 Oblique Translation

4.1 Literal versus Free Translation

Until the second half of the twentieth century debates on translation were centred around two general approaches of translation: literal versus free translation. While literal translation follows the ST as closely as possible in terms of form, the free approach takes over the sense of the ST (Munday). This distinction between capturing and reproducing the sense of a text as opposed to the literal method of staying close to the original words, syntax and ideas of the ST was introduced by St. Jerome in 395 CE. He coined the terms word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation, creating two poles around which most theories about translation have been based ever since. In 1680 John Dryden divided translation approaches into three categories: metaphrasing (word-for-word), paraphrasing (words less strictly followed), and imitating (very free). These approaches were still based on St. Jerome’s theories (Munday 41). Almost three centuries later Eugene Nida developed the orientations of formal

equivalence and dynamic or functional equivalence. The first orients on keeping the message in form while the second is concerned with maintaining the relationship between message and receptor (Munday 66). Although Nida’s concepts were less sterile than the earlier ideas, they could still be reduced to literal versus free translation. Later theories were increasingly concerned with functional approaches, elaborating on Nida’s equivalence theory, until gradually the scope was widened to discourse, text, and register analysis approaches.

For my contrastive analysis of syntactic triggers of ideology the more literal approach is most interesting as that starts from the idea that a translator should look at micro-level (word and sentence) first. This factor makes Vinay and Darbelet’s significant model for the analysis of translation particularly suitable for this work as it is based on the notion that literal translation should be aspired at all times, and solely be forsaken if grammatical, syntactic, or pragmatic

(22)

16 reasons require so (Munday 87). Their description of the several approaches and techniques are explained in chapter 4.2 following this section.

4.2 Vinay and Darbelet’ s Taxonomy

In the 1960s Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet carried out a comparative stylistic analysis of French and English. Their analysis led to a distinction between translation strategies and translation procedures. While a strategy characterizes the overall orientation of a translator towards the ST or the TT (e.g. free versus literal), a procedure is the actual technique that a translator uses. Based on their analysis Vinay and Darbelnet classified two strategies which they called direct and oblique translation (Vinay, Darbelnet 31). Like most strategies these evolved from the literal and free approaches respectively. Subsequently, they claimed that there were seven most commonly used procedures that a translator adopts. These procedures were categorized according to their direct or oblique translation orientation and have been listed in the subsequent section 4.3.

Additionally, Vinay and Darbelnet described two more influential factors that play a role in a translator’s decision. They referred to these features as servitude and option (15). The concept of servitude corresponds to obligatory changes in a text due to incompatibilities in the ST and TT. The second factor option refers to the possibility for a translator to deviate from a literal translation, even when this is not necessary. They considered this freedom to be the

translator’s main concern as according to them the option to choose from an array of

possibilities to express the nuances of the message, was the “realm of stylistics” (Munday 91). In my analysis of translation procedures in my corpus I have also included these strategies if relevant, as the translator’s decision to change text may indeed lead to different ideological conveyance as can be seen in the next section 4.3 as well as in chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.

(23)

17

4.3 The Translation Procedures and the Aim of this Thesis

Like Vinay and Darbelnet I have divided the seven procedures according to their direct or oblique character. The lists as exemplified in 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 contain the most important techniques that Vinay and Darbelnet describe. There are a number of other less common techniques that could be added to this model. However, for the purpose of my analysis they are less relevant and have not been added here. One technique that is not grouped under Vinay and Darbelnet’s seven most common procedures, but should be mentioned is amplification, the use of more words in the TL, often because of syntactic expansion (Vinay, Darbelnet 192). An example of this technique is:

the charge against him  the charge brought against him (Munday 89)

I mention it here for completeness and accuracy as it is a technique that is referred to in chapter 6.2, 6.6 and 7.4 as a procedure that was applied to translate Equation, Replacive Opposition and Cleft Structure respectively.

The procedures I expect to be used most often for the translation of syntactic triggers of ideology in my corpus are: literal translation, transposition and modulation. The literal translation procedure is the literal rendering of a structure and may be essential to analyse when, due to this procedure, (part of) the ideological conveyance is lost. Transposition refers to a change in word class, or part of speech as Vinay and Darbelnet call it (36) while

modulation is a translation procedure that causes semantic or pragmatic change. These two are especially interesting to analyse as they may involve an intentional decision of the translator. While I expect to find that many syntactic structures are translated by applying literal translation, I anticipate that when a transposition or modulation has taken place in the TT there will be more reason for close scrutiny, as deviations in structure or semantics between the ST and the TT may influence the ideological undertone. Since semantic changes are beyond the scope of this work my focal point is transposition only identifying

modulations if they influence objectivity. Although Vinay and Darbelnet have listed several specific categories for transposition and modulation (Munday 88), I have decided not to include the lists in this chapter, and only refer to explicit techniques if relevant. It must be

(24)

18 noted that when literal translation is referred to in this paper it applies to the syntactic

structure as a tool only and not to the separate constituents in the syntactic feature.

4.3.1 Direct Translation Procedures

Vinay and Darbelnet make a distinction between direct and oblique translation procedures which “hark back to the ‘literal vs free’ division” (Munday 86), which was discussed in chapter 4.1. The three procedures that they group under direct translation are:

Borrowing

The SL word is not translated but directly transferred to the TL usually because there is no translation for it in the TL (e.g. perestroika, sushi). Often the word becomes fully integrated in the TL.

Calque

The expression or structure in the SL is literally translated to the TL (e.g. ‘meesterstuk’ in Dutch became ‘masterpiece’ in English, or ‘blue blood’ from ‘sangre azul’ in Spanish). Calques often become fully integrated in the TT, albeit sometimes with semantic change (‘handy’ in German, for ‘cell phone’)

Literal translation

This word-for-word translation should be the basic principle for a translator according to Vinay and Darbelnet. They describe it as the most common translation procedure between languages of the same family (like English and Dutch). Below an invented example:

He bought the books and left the shop Hij kocht de boeken en verliet de winkel.

(25)

19 4.3.2 Oblique Translation

When literal translation is not possible Vinay and Darbelnet suggest another four procedures that may be applied, which they classify as oblique translation procedures (Munday 87). They are listed in this chapter and, when possible, illustrated by examples from the corpus.

Transposition

Vinay and Darbelnet see this as the most common procedure that translators apply in case of a grammatical, syntactic, or pragmatic incorrectness of a literal translation. Transposition involves a structural change of one part of speech for another without changing the sense:

As shown in the examples the transposition may include a change from adjective to verb (A) or a verb changing into a noun phrase (B). Vinay and Darbelnet classify at least ten different categories of transposition (Vinay, Darbelnet 36).

This is one of the two most interesting procedures for my analysis as shifts in translation on this level may sometimes interfere with the author’s ideological intentions behind syntactic choices. As my analysis is based on the assumption that syntactic structures may trigger ideological ideas, it is an important procedure to identify in my comparative analysis. To illustrate this we may want to consider example B again after we have discussed the tool of Noun Modification in chapter 5.3 and 5.4.

A) But any successor government must be able to maintain order and not permit the Islamic State to exploit a power vacuum, as it has done in Libya.

Lines 26-28

Text 1

Maar welke regering hier ook op volgt, deze moet in staat zijn om de orde te bewaren en de Islamitische Staat niet zoals in Libië toestaan een machtsvacuüm te benutten.

Lines 36-37

B) British withdrawal would likely inspire similar moves in other countries, with the risk that the EU, already weakened, might begin to fragment

Lines 42-44

Text 5

Integendeel, een Brits vertrek zou vermoedelijk de inspiratiebron zijn voor soortgelijke bewegingen in andere landen, met het risico dat de EU, die toch al verzwakt is, uit elkaar zou kunnen vallen.

Lines 66-68

(26)

20 Modulation

Vinay and Darbelnet group all changes regarding semantics and point of view under this procedure. They claim that modulation is justified if a translation that results in a

grammatically correct utterance is considered “unsuitable, unidiomatic or awkward in the TL” (Vinay, Darbelnet 36). As with transposition, they discern between obligatory (example A) and optional (example B) modulation. In the following examples the modulations are in bold:

In example A, the verb has been changed because a literal translation of the English ‘forms’ to the Dutch word ‘vormt’ would in this context not collocate with the word ‘component’ in Dutch. Therefore, the translator must apply obligatory modulation, changing the point of view by replacing a lexical verb with a copula. Conversely, the following example (B) is one in which the modulation was not necessarily obligatory:

The modulation that the translator has applied here is called ‘negation of opposite’ by Vinay and Darbelnet (Munday 88). By changing ‘no less’ into a more positive ‘net zo’ (equally as) a shift in point of view has been created. The translator has chosen not to translate ‘no less’ with the literal ‘niet minder’ .We will see in our analysis of Jeffries’ tools that it is exactly in these situations that the translator may intentionally or unintentionally ignore or alter possible deliberate choices. Interestingly, Jeffries ranges this particular procedure under syntactic triggers to convey ideology, while Vinay and Darbelnet group it under ‘semantics’. In my comparative analysis in chapter 8.2 I explain why this may nonetheless be a relevant procedure in this work.

Equivalence (as a procedure, not a strategy or orientation)

This procedure is mostly used for the translation of idioms and proverbs which are often impossible to translate literally:

A) It is the free movement of people, not border-free travel, that forms an essential component of the EU.

45-46 3 Het vrije verkeer van personen, niet reizen zonder grenzen, is de

essentiële component in de EU.

57-58

B) A diplomatic component is no less essential to any response

25 1 Een diplomatieke component is voor elke respons net zo van belang

(27)

21 There’s no place like home.

Zoals het klokje thuis tikt, tikt het nergens.

Adaptation

This procedure involves the change of cultural reference. Vinay and Darbelnet use the example of a game of cricket in England which will most likely not have the same

connotation as in the Netherlands and had therefore better be translated by football, or hockey.

4.3.3 The Role of the Procedures in the Analysis

In the next chapters (5-8) the four linguistic practices that I have selected from Jeffries’

Critical Stylistics model are discussed by analysing the corresponding syntactic structures that Jeffries classifies as possible ideological triggers. First, the forms, functions and effects of the syntactic structures are illustrated by means of the examples from the English texts in the corpus. Then these structures are compared to their Dutch counterparts. Finally, the translation procedure that has led to the translation is analysed in relation to direct or oblique strategy, option and servitude, and the translation technique used. Based on these analyses I hope to comment on the role of the translator in the ideological transfer from the SL to the TL.

(28)

22

Chapter 5 Naming and Describing

5.1 Noun modification

5.2 Translating Noun Modification 5.3 Nominalization

5.4 Translating Nominalization 5.5 Conclusion

This chapter analyses two of the linguistic tools associated with Jeffries’ first practice Naming and Describing which roughly covers three linguistic tools (Jeffries 20):

 The choice of a noun to refer to an object (Connotation)

 The construction of a noun phrase or noun group that gives more details on the referent’s nature. (Noun Modification)

 The act of nominalising a process or action which is otherwise typically represented by a verb. (Nominalization)

The first tool looks into the connotation a particular word choice may bring to mind. To a certain extent this is an arbitrary affair as what we perceive as the meaning of a word largely depends on conventions and our capability to interpret beyond those conventions. At first I intended to use this tool for analysis only when the choice of a noun clearly deviated from our frame of reference. Yet, after detailed analysis of all texts and their translations it appears that there is no such divergence. For this reason I have only included Noun Modification and Nominalization in my analysis, which are discussed in the subsequent sections 5.1 - 5.5.

(29)

23

5.1 Noun Modification

The second of Jeffries’tools distinguishes between modifications and propositions in a sentence. By constructing a noun group in which the head noun is embedded in a number of modifiers the embedding parts are often taken for granted by the reader whereas, in fact, they may still be open to debate. Jeffries calls this elaborate modification of nouns ‘packaging up’ (Jeffries 22), and claims they are not as susceptible to questioning as propositions are.

According to him the proposition in a sentence is conveyed by the syntactic structure: subject-predicator-object, in which the predicate is the verbalization process that defines the relationship between the participants in a sentence (Jeffries 23). Consider the following sentence:

If the accord enters into force, it will expand world trade, boost economic growth, and strengthen the United States’ ties with regional allies who would otherwise be tempted to move closer to China. (Text 2, lines 12-14)

In this sentence I have highlighted the second proposition (S-P-O) which is: ‘it (the accord) will strengthen the United States’ ties with regional allies’. The reader is given the option to disagree with this statement or at least question it: ‘ Will it really strengthen ties with regional allies?’. Conversely, the post modifier of ‘regional allies’ which has been added as extra information about the allies is hardly arguable because it is not a clear proposition:

regional allies who would otherwise be tempted to move closer to China

While embedding ‘regional allies’, the post modifier (who...China) is itself an embedded assumption that is not up for discussion. Compare:

If the accord enters into force, it will expand world trade, boost economic growth, and strengthen the United States’ ties with regional allies. These allies would otherwise be tempted to move closer to China.

I have altered the post modifier of the ‘regional allies’ into a proposition of its own. There is now a clear relation between subject, predicator, and subject attribute. The verbalization process is quite intensive, represented by ‘would be’, but nonetheless the reader is allowed some room to disagree with this assertion: ‘I don’t think the regional allies would necessarily be tempted to move closer to China’ or ‘what if they did, would that be a problem?’. The

(30)

24 effect of the packaging in the original sentence is that the reader takes for granted that if the US’ ties with regional allies are not strengthened, they will move closer to China. Additionally, the reader is led to believe that this effect is undesirable.

Jeffries claims that a proposition is susceptible to debate because the reader is made aware of the relation between the participants (21). We have seen this to some extent in the example above. In order to thoroughly understand his claim I will strip another sentence from one of the texts all the way to the proposition:

The attacks in Paris by individuals associated with the Islamic State, coming on the heels of bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, reinforce the reality that the terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase. (Text1, lines 1-3)

The bold part in the example above is the subject of the sentence. It is realised by a noun phrase. The head noun of this noun phrase is: attacks. It is pre-modified by the definite article ‘the’ and post modified by a prepositional phrase (in Paris), another prepositional phrase (by individuals... State), and a relative clause containing more noun and prepositional phrases. Before we look at these constructions on phrase level I would like to continue with our sentence analysis first.

The attacks in Paris by individuals associated with the Islamic State, coming on the heels of bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, reinforce the reality that the terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase.

The predicator in the sentence is realised by the verb phrase ‘reinforce’. It indicates the process or action that is taking place between the subject and possible objects. The direct object of this sentence is in bold face in the part below.

The direct object of the sentence is realised by another noun phrase with ‘reality’ as the head noun. Like the subject, the object’s head noun is premodified and post modified by a number

(31)

25 of other constructions. Before we look at these, let us consider to what proposition we have actually stripped the sentence:

Attacks reinforce reality.

According to Jeffries’ practice of Naming it is this proposition that leaves room for discussion. These three constituents convey the obvious message of the sentence. The modifiers that have been used to identify the subject and direct object function on a different level. As they are embedded within the structure of the noun phrase they are less easily arguable, and assumed to be facts. Chapter 7 of this work illustrates how this aspect of Noun Modification ties in with Subordination, a tool related to Prioritizing.

As for the subject in the example sentence, its post-modifier gives us some factual information about the suspects and about the circumstances (following two other attacks). We might not think it necessary to argue these facts (although I think the Paris attacks preceded the other two). The modifiers in the direct object, however, are a potential package with ideological ideas:

the reality that the terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase. (text 1 line 3)

The head noun ‘reality’ is post modified by an appositive finite clause containing its own subject, predicator and direct object. If we look at the direct object of this clause we see that it is realised by a noun phrase with ‘phase’ as the head noun modified by the pre-modifiers ‘new’ and ‘even more dangerous’. Where the first pre-modifier may not be up for discussion (as they were indeed an unprecedented form of attack in Europe), the second one is – though instinctively one might agree – not merely factual. Unconsciously it provokes anxiety with the reader, and because it is embedded in all these syntactic layers it is very difficult to question this subtly imposed feeling of uneasiness.

In chapter 7.7 and 7.8 we see that Noun Modification as a tool of Naming and Describing overlaps with Subordination, one of the tools of Prioritizing.

(32)

26

5.2 Translating Noun Modification

While much has been written on form and function of noun phrases in Dutch (Aarts;

Broekhuis; Renkema), as well as on processing relative clauses (Mak), there is no literature on Noun Modification in Dutch as a means to express ideology. Even Verhagen does not identify Noun Modification as a stylistic device in his long Checklist Nederlandse

Stijlmiddelen. The idea that “packaging” of information may potentially conceal ideology only floats to the surface in Dutch literature when embedded sentence structures are discussed (Aarts, Renkema, van Leeuwen), a tool that Jeffries classifies as Prioritizing by means of Subordination (chapter 7.7 and 7.8).

Looking at the instances of Noun Modification in my corpus, we will see that in most cases the translation of the post modifier in the TT is similar to that in the ST:

A literal translation here has resulted in a similar effect in both ST and TT, as the modifier construction prevents the reader from querying the statement. The same applies to the next example:

Lines 1-3

Text 1

De aanslagen in Parijs door individuen geassocieerd met de Islamitische Staat, vlak na bomaanslagen in Beirut en het neerhalen van een Russisch verkeersvliegtuig boven de Sinaï, versterken nog eens de realiteit dat de terrorismedreiging in een nieuwe en zelfs nog gevaarlijker fase terecht is gekomen.

Lines 2-5

If the accord enters into force, it will expand world trade, boost economic growth, and strengthen the United States’ ties with regional allies who would otherwise be tempted to move closer to China.

Lines 12-14

Text 2

Als het akkoord van kracht wordt, zal het de wereldhandel doen groeien en de banden van de Verenigde Staten versterken met regionale bondgenoten die anders in de verleiding zouden komen dichter tegen China aan te kruipen

Lines 12-14

(33)

27 In both ST and TT ‘the allies’ is modified by a relative clause creating an embedded

assumption that the reader is unlikely to question. The effect of a literal translation

To illustrate the difference in ideological conveyance I have included an example from my corpus of a post-modifier that was not translated as a post-modifier:

In the ST the description of ‘the nationalists’ is embedded in the noun phrase and hence less susceptible to debate (as shown below),

the nationalists, who are keen to portray the EU as a burdensome obligation,

The translator has applied a transposition changing the post modifier into a sub clause in the TT and with that transforming the sentence in the TT into a proposition, using the modal auxiliary ‘can’ which seems to leave even more room to argue the assertion:

which can again be misused by nationalists to portray the EU as a burdensome obligation instead of a source of solutions.

The strategy of oblique translation that the translator has used in the form of a transposition seems optional. An attempt to use a literal translation procedure shows that there may be an acceptable alternative:

But Schengen makes this very difficult to enforce – a reality that plays further into the hands of the

nationalists, who are keen to portray the EU as a burdensome obligation, rather than as a source of solutions or opportunities. Lines 40-43 Text 3 Maar vanwege Schengen is dit bijzonder moeilijk uit te voeren - wat alweer door nationalisten kan worden misbruikt om de EU als een lastige verplichting af te schilderen in plaats van als bron voor oplossingen.

Lines 52-54

Reverse Translation But because of Schengen this is very difficult to enforce, which can again be misused by nationalists to portray the EU as a burdensome obligation instead of a source of solutions.

(34)

28 Although one might want to argue about the elegance of this sentence in Dutch, the

ideological conveyance is kept intact more than in the original translation, as the ”keenness of the nationalists” is no longer a proposition, and up for discussion, but rather an embedded assumption, no longer in dispute. Whether the translator has intentionally decided to flout the ideological trigger or unintentionally changed it for stylistic reasons we do not know. We might conclude, though, that a literal translation would have been more appropriate in terms of ideological equivalence.

5.3 Nominalization

Jeffries calls the third, and last, linguistic tool to detect deviant naming Nominalization. By nominalising a process, action, or event the actor can be left out. “Providing a name for an action or an event obscures agency, and hence the perpetrators’ rationale and responsibility” (Richardson 203). This “obscuring of agency” can be used not only to shirk responsibility, but also to imply who is responsible. We can find an example in the following sentence:

The attacks in Paris by individuals associated with the Islamic State, coming on the heels of bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula, reinforce the reality that the terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase. (Text 1, line 3)

In the example above the actor that caused “the downing” has been left out. The reason may be that, at the time of writing, it was still not known who was responsible. Apart from the conciseness that this structure enhances, there may have been another, more ideological reason for the writer to leave it out. If we consider the preceding part in the sentence, we see that “the downing” is last in a list of three horrific incidents. The first incident is associated But Schengen makes this

very difficult to enforce – a reality that plays further into the hands of the nationalists, who are keen to portray the EU as a burdensome obligation, rather than as a source of solutions or opportunities.

Lines 40-43

Text 3

Maar vanwege Schengen is dit bijzonder moeilijk uit te voeren – een realiteit die de

nationalisten, die erop gespitst zijn om de EU als een lastige verplichting af te schilderen in plaats van als bron voor oplossingen, in de hand speelt.

Lines 52-54

(35)

29 with IS (the terrorist threat). By leaving out the agent with the other two incidents, it is

implied that the same actor (IS) is responsible. In this way the writer has been able to substantiate his claim that the “terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase” enhancing the effect that the sentence seems to have: generating anxiety.

Another reason why a nominal is sometimes preferred to a process is that it can denote a certain state of permanence to a situation. By nominalising a verb, the reader is no longer entitled to “question, debate or comment upon the process” (Jeffries 25):

The agreement’s entry into force, though, is subject to ratification by most of the 12 signatories’ legislatures.

By nominalising the process of “entering into force” the dynamic element is left out. This creates a static, and less arguable unit. Compare the following sentence that appeared earlier in the same text:

If the accord enters into force, it will expand world trade, boost economic growth, and strengthen the United States’ ties with regional allies who would otherwise be tempted to move closer to China.

In this sentence the ‘entering’ is a process, which makes the situation less definite and still up for discussion or change. It seems that a same sort of mechanism is at work here as the one we noticed in effect earlier in Jeffries’ second linguistic practice of naming: Noun

Modification. The effect of this type of Nominalisation is similar to that of “packaging”: it does not leave room to debate or reconsider the actual process.

Nominalisation may also be used when the mention of the actor is not necessary because he/she is referred to earlier in the text:

They, like the Schengen countries, cannot credibly say how many migrants are in their country, who these people are, or when they arrived. This loss of control matters, for two main reasons. (text 3 lines 32-33)

In this case, however, the use of Nominalization does not necessarily conceal ideology, but is used merely for stylistic reasons.

(36)

30 In my analysis I have only looked at Nominalisation if a process or event is covered because it is supposedly “embarrassing or ideologically uncomfortable” (Richardson 241) like the first two examples I gave. The effect of Nominalisation can be compared to that of the Passive voice, a tool that Jeffries has grouped under the practice of prioritizing. This tool is discussed in chapters 7.5 and 7.6.

5.4 Translating Nominalization

Like in English there are many productive processes in Dutch for the derivation of what Broekhuis calls deverbal nouns (Broekhuis 49). He distinguishes five most common processes which include infinitival Nominalization and morphological Nominalization. Yet, he observes that his list is by no means exhaustive (49). The effect that Nominalization may have in Dutch appears to be similar to that in English, judging from the amount of Dutch literature devoted to writing advices on the (non) use of Nominalization (van Leeuwen 60). Frequent use of nominalisation is assumed to contribute to abstraction and vagueness (Onrust 20). Compared to the use of verbalization, the action, when nominalised, is presented as a state or

phenomenon rather than a process. As we saw in the first part of this section this leaves little room for debate. Hence we might expect the same effects from the use of nominalization in Dutch as we do in English.

If we look at the first example below we see that the translator has kept the nominalised form which in Dutch is created by a determiner and the infinitive of the verb (neerhalen). By doing so he has applied a literal translation procedure. He has maintained the same syntactic structure in the sentence and with that the same ideological intention:

The attacks in Paris by

individuals associated with the Islamic State, coming on the heels of bombings in Beirut and the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai Peninsula,

reinforce the reality that the terrorist threat has entered a new and even more dangerous phase.

Lines 1-3

Text 1

De aanslagen in Parijs door individuen geassocieerd met de Islamitische Staat, vlak na bomaanslagen in Beirut en het neerhalen van een Russisch verkeersvliegtuig boven de Sinaï, versterken nog eens de realiteit dat de terrorismedreiging in een nieuwe en zelfs nog gevaarlijker fase terecht is gekomen.

Lines 2-5

(37)

31 Both author and translator have nominalised the second and third incident listed while they mention an alleged agent (IS) in the beginning of the sentence, carrying an implication in both texts that the same actor is responsible for all incidents. Apart from the fact that this

eventually appeared to be true, it may have been an intentional choice to use Nominalization here to enforce the sense of anxiety the author seems to want to create. In my next example we see that the translator has kept the nominalised construction, again by adding a determiner to the verbal expression:

The translator has applied the literal translation procedure and with that maintained a similar effect. Earlier we concluded that the static effect of the nominalization in this example is quite dominant. Note that I have indicated in bold another instance of Nominalization which creates an even more static, less arguable effect. To illustrate the difference with the verbalized alternative I have rewritten both ST and TT. The actions expressed by means of verbs not only create a livelier text, but also one that we may want to ask questions about:

The agreement’s entry into force, though, is subject to ratification by most of the 12 signatories’ legislatures.

Lines 15-16

Text 2

Het van kracht worden van de overeenkomst is echter afhankelijk van de ratificatie door de

parlementen van de ondertekenende landen.

Lines 14-16

The agreement’s entry into force, though, is subject to ratification by most of the 12 signatories’

legislatures.

Verbalized Alternative:

However, most of the 12 signatories’ legislatures have to ratify the agreement before it can enter into force.

Lines 15-16

Text 2

Het van kracht worden van de overeenkomst is echter afhankelijk van de ratificatie door de parlementen van de ondertekenende landen.

Verbalized Alternative:

De parlementen van de ondertekende landen moeten de overeenkomst echter ratificeren voordat ze van kracht kan gaan.

Lines 14-16

(38)

32 In both languages the consequence of the more dynamic construction is apparent. The reader is enabled to visualize what the claim entails and is left some liberty to consider other options. The choice to nominalise the processes in the original sentence then may have been an

intentional one as the author may not have wanted to leave open the options for questioning.

In chapter 4.3.2 I suggested we might want to take another look at example B used to illustrate the translation procedure transposition:

The process in the ST (would inspire) has been nominalised by the translator (de

inspiratiebron). The effect of this optional transposition from verb to noun is that the Dutch reader is left with less room to question the possibility of “British withdrawal inspiring moves in other countries” as it is presented as an inactive abstract entity. Why the translator has taken the liberty to reduce the options of challenging the author’s assertions remains a mystery. It does, however, illustrate the powerful properties of Nominalization, and it confirms the importance of a translator’s awareness of the ability of this or any of the

discussed syntactic structures to become ideological triggers (note the not intended number of nominalizations in this sentence).

B) British withdrawal would likely inspire similar moves in other countries, with the risk that the EU, already weakened, might begin to fragment

Lines 42-44

Text 5

Integendeel, een Brits vertrek zou vermoedelijk de inspiratiebron zijn voor soortgelijke bewegingen in andere landen, met het risico dat de EU, die toch al verzwakt is, uit elkaar zou kunnen vallen.

Lines 66-68

(39)

33

5.5 Conclusion

Though Noun Modification may not yet have been discovered as a vehicle for conveying ideology by Dutch critics and scholars, the examples in my corpus show that they do have potential to do so in both English and Dutch. A translator may want to reproduce this syntactic structure in the translation, using a literal translation procedure with only minor (obligatory) modulations. For more on Noun Modification and relative clauses in Dutch I would like to refer to Broekhuis (2012). The analysis also reveals that the practice of nominalising verbal actions has been acknowledged in both languages as a tool that influences the effect on a reader (Jeffries, Richards, Verhagen, Aarts). The potential

ideological nature of this effect has, however, not been addressed in Dutch literature to a large extent. It may be essential for a translator to analyse the ST on ideological Nominalizations and respect them in the translation, if the aim is to exert the same subtle effect on the reader. The most likely procedure then to employ is literal translation.

(40)

34

Chapter 6 Equating and Contrasting

6.1 Equating

6.2 Translating Equation 6.3 Contrasting

6.4 Negated Opposition

6.5 Translating Negated Opposition 6.6 Replacive Opposition

6.7 Translating Replacive Opposition 6.8 Concessive Opposition

6.9 Translating Concessive Opposition 6.10 Contrastives

6.11 Translating Contrastives 6.12 Conclusion

The practice of equating and contrasting is the practice in which the author uses equivalence and opposition to covey ideology. The statement X is Y may appear to be a general truth, but if we aim to be aware of all ideology in the text, we ought to question whether X is really Y. By opposing negatively (X is not Y) the author creates a pair of words that may or may not be conventionally recognised as opposites. This automatically denies (non-) properties in X which we tend to take for granted, but maybe should not. Jeffries’ contention is that “texts have the capacity, frequently used, to set up new synonymies and oppositions, sometimes between words that we would never relate to each other out of context, and sometimes between phrases and clauses...” (52). Hence, in equating and contrasting there is a close relation between syntactic triggers and the semantic features of the words in that syntactic structure (Jeffries 53). As semantic elements are often based on conventional concepts, this tool may have a large overlap with Critical Discourse analysis. Jeffries acknowledges that despite several possibilities to recognise the physical form of opposition and equivalence triggers, “there remains a conceptual coherence to the whole which is that texts are able to promote semantic equivalence (synonymy) or contrast (antonymy) by such variety of means” and that “this function of texts is hugely powerful.” (59). Still, he provides us with the most common syntactic features for equation and contrasting. In this chapter I aim to illustrate

Translating the Subtle Powers of English: A Study of Ideological Triggers in English Syntactic Structures and Their Translations to Dutch